Are Super Rugby teams paying too big a penalty?

I agree, as I've posted elsewhere the scrum is the only facet of play in which the dominant team is automatically rewarded with 3 points. If scrum logic was applied to the tackle for instance, every time you tackled a guy and knocked him backwards you would be given a kick at goal.

That's fine if the penalty is an infringement caused by pressure of the attacking team, however, the truth is that many penalties are incorrectly awarded. A couple of classic examples came from the Reds Crusaders game a couple of weeks ago. One penalty which stood out was Digby being pinged for not releasing when in fact the ball emerged within a second or 2. This was clearly a harsh penalty, against the run of play, and cost the Reds 3 points. You can't justify that decision based on your logic of rewarding pressure.

Here, here!

There is a major flaw in your first argument. The fact remains a lot of penalties in rugby are awarded incorrectly or for marginal infringements. How many scrum penalties are a lottery which could have gone either way? How many breakdown penalties result from players trying to play within the rules, but being pinged for some perceived indiscretion? Of course there are also some cynical penalties but these are far from the majority.

In other words, don't compete for the ball.

So are you suggesting an increased number of infringements coming under the short arm penalty? I agree a lot of what you’ve said here and other posts you’ve made Colvin. Things on a rugby field are complex and hard to control and make judgements of for the referee. In particular (as you’ve mentioned somewhere else) the rulings at scrum time are driving fans and players up the wall. It seriously seems like half the time the referee gets out a coin, flips it and makes a call accordingly. At one point during the game yesterday (Reds v Chiefs) the commentators praised the ref for making quick calls at scrum time and keeping the game flowing. This despite many of the calls he was making being wrong. I’m all for fast flowing rugby but if you’re constantly getting the rough end of the pineapple with collapsed scrum rulings it makes a farce out of the game. I agree, some rules need to be simplified. Especially at the scrum, I’d in fact do away with them altogether. But I don’t think the way to go is having a list of infringements come under kicking for touch and others result in allowing a shot at goal. Especially when there are so many things going on in a rugby field and a lot is left up to the interpretation of the referee. Simplify it, regardless of the type of infringement kick for touch or quick tap when it occurs outside the attacking 22 and inside still provide those options along with a kick at goal.

14 on 15 is hardly points in the bank though. And taking away goal kicks all together is going to put an increased amount of pressure on the referees as to when to bring out a card and when to leave it in the pocket. As we saw yesterday in the Reds game, referees still struggle with the concept of using cards. Taking away an important step in the penalising chain is going to put more emphasis on referees getting it right.

The problem to me isn't the number of penalties or the point system (for deterrent sake), it's the fact that the current laws encourage kicking at goal from the halfway line (miss it and kick it dead and you get it back from the 22) - this needs to be changed (by either reducing point for penalties outside the 22 OR giving the scrum from where it was kicked (like a dead punt kick)) as rarely are penalties around the halfway line imminent try scoring oppurtunities which is the point of penalty goals

interesting you mention NFL just as many kicks at goal in that game

Make penalty goals worth 2 points. Problem solved. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.

Rob9, And them playing a man down for 5 minutes, giving you an automatic overlap somewhere, doesnt do that ? Pick up the ball, run with it, and put it over the try line for your points.

Yes Rob9, i didn't really get into the point you were making about only taking a shot at goal from within a designated zone. It's an interesting theory and at first I liked it but then I came back to the point that I believe some offences are worthy of an opportunity to score 3 points but that under the current laws or interpretation many are so immaterial that they shouldn't. So I guess I'm for being more selective on the actual offence itself rather than where the offence took place.

I'm still ranting about referees affecting the results of games by virtue of their personal interpretation of the laws; and their enthusiam to award penalties. And my belief that too often referees make mistakes which can determine the results of games. Against the Crusaders last week the Reds were pinged 17 times. Against the Chiefs today they were pinged 6 times.They lost last week; they won this week. Did the Reds change their style of play so much that this week they played like angels or was it that the referees interpreted it all differently.

An interesting thought. I still think they should be on offer when an infringement occurs between the 22 and the try line. The attacking teams done the hard work to get into their opponents red zone and if the defensive side infringes in that area the attacking team should still have the option to come away with some easy(ier) points. There still needs to be that slap across the back of the hand for a defensive side using illegal tactics in an attempt to shut out a try (one must assume that would be the reason for a penalty in that particular area of the pitch) and there should also be that option for rewarding the attacking team for working their way up the field, trying to do the right thing (by the running rugby bible) but being shut out by their opponents illegal play. Agree that rewarding teams outside that 22 and up to 60 meters away from the try line with an attempt at 3 points is an area of the game that should be looked at.

Rob9, You could remove penalty kicks completely.

I would prefer cleaning up the problems with the scrum with a healthy dose of the sin bin. Of course, I would also prefer to let the players pack down without being asked and the halfback sin binned for not feeding the ball straight, but that is just me. While I would favor making all goals (penalty, conversion, drop) equal at two or three points a piece (either one), I am never a fan of altering the scoring system to favor one style of play.

I'm not a fan of basketball nor am I a fan of the NBA's ridiculous state of affairs where the officials can be influenced by home team supporters, but basketball does have something going for it--no one questions free throws. Oh sure someone might complain that a foul was undeserved or the refs missed a foul, but no one ever claims that they lost a game because their opponent had too many free throws--though they would admit that they made too many fouls and let their opponent have too many chances. A free throw is just a part of the game and accepted. Union on the other hand has a large base that seems to think that tries are the only way to be entertaining and goals are bad. By their insane troll logic, a team that decides to score from the boot is really, really bad. I've said it before and I will say it again--how many people complaining about penalty kicks would prefer to be the team that scores seven points in a game that ends nine points to seven? My favorite part of union is when one team is grinding their way towards goal over many, many phases. But after a while I often wonder why that team just doesn't accept that if they didn't score on the first ten phases, the next ten will not be much more likely to breach the line. In other words, why not just take a goal and try again. The object of the game is to score points, not tries.

I agree Tom, but the thing that annoys me the most is the 3 point field goals. One team could score a brilliant try, taking the ball 100 metres down field with a clinical interchange of passing and kicking, and the miss the conversion, while the other team could hit back with two field goals, kicked above the heads of all the defenders where they can't stop the ball, and take a one point lead. It's a really negative part of Union, for the gameplay and the entertainment of fans.

I agree with colvin in essence. Telling players not to concede penalties won't solve the problem, because so many penalties are accidental and ify Something else is needed to reward teams that want to score tries. It's not the amount of tries that are scored that needs to improve, it's the desire from teams to rely more on scoring tries if they want to win.

That's all well and good colvin but what does all of what you've said have to do with my view and what ive said above? I actually suggest that more ball in play is a good thing for rugby and what the powers that be should be aiming towards.